Time nears for an end to old-hat ideas

Most UK bosses are aware of the incoming anti-ageism law, but many have done nothing to prepare for it, says Hilaire Gomer

The latest Recruitment Confidence Index survey has focused on the issue of ageism at work and has found that hundreds of employers are failing to prepare for legislation designed to eliminate ageism at work in 2006.

Nevertheless, the Government's Age Positive campaign, which sponsored the study, was pleased that awareness of the impending legislation has grown among employers.

"The survey shows that employers are now aware of the need to remove ageism from the workplace," said minister for Age Positive, Malcolm Wicks.

"But we need to do more to ensure that all employers understand the real business benefits of employing and training younger and older workers. Our Age Positive campaign will continue to promote the fact that employers reduce costs by removing ageism from their organisations."

The research, based on responses from 1,200 human resource executives, found that 67pc of companies were now appraised of the Government's intention to introduce legislation where employers can no longer treat people of different ages differently.

But only one third of human resource departments had an age policy, with 38pc saying they planned to introduce one in the next two years. A third had no clear plans at all.

Shaun Tyson, professor of HR at Cranfield, says, "It is amazing that so many organisations do not have age policies in place. Experience from dealing with sex and race discrimination shows that developing a policy is just the first step. Changing the deep-seated prejudices of managers across an organisation will take time and effort."

It seems there is also a worrying lack of commitment among firms to removing ageism from the work face: only two thirds of managers believe their board or senior management are committed to change.

For the Government, which closed the first round of consultations on how it will implement the legislation on Monday, the survey could be seen as yet more evidence that not enough companies have grasped the concept of employing all ages at work.

Experts feel that Age Positive still has an uphill climb getting through to head-in-the-sand businesses. The Employers Forum on Age (EFA) has been largely crying in the wilderness since it was set up six years ago. It has made progress, but is still anxious about the number of companies that have yet to come aboard.

Rachel Krys, of the forum, says: 'The EFA's members have been working hard to ensure their own policies and practices are age neutral, but this report underlines the need for a major government education and awareness campaign to increase understanding of the issue among UK business. It also emphasises the urgent need to challenge age-based stereotypes - of both older and younger workers.

"We estimate that age discrimination claims could cost UK employers £193m in the first year of the legislation alone, so it is important that employers understand the changes they need to make." Dr Emma Parry, research fellow at Cranfield, says, "Given how the survey respondents are not only senior executives but meant to be cutting edge human resource executives, the level of unconcern in some of them is surprising.

"Even when there appears to be a high proportion of respondents sounding open-minded about ageism, I think there is quite a lot of social desirability at work here. HR personnel repeat the line that their boardroom is anti-ageism, but in practice not much is being done to do away with it, by the board or anyone else."

The survey found age stereotyping to be widespread. Managers thought older workers would be slower to learn, less open to new ideas and less interested in training and development than younger workers.

Older workers were also reckoned to be less likely to take on new ideas and lacking in technical skills. Younger workers don't escape from ageism either; they are seen as less reliable, more likely to take time off sick, and less likely to stay in a job.

Managers gave "legitimate business reasons" for specifying age limits for employees and the top ones were: health and safety (36pc), medical/fitness (41pc), and insurance and legal requirements (21pc).

Stephanie Richards, recruitment research manager at The Daily Telegraph, says, "There is much more to do to get rid of ageist attitudes. Recruitment advertisements are the public face of how a company is complying with the law, but what is really important is what happens next, sifting through CVs and conducting interviews."

For all the unbothered HR executives many are already "age aware", the survey found, and have policies and procedures in place.

For example, 57pc do not have age limits and age words in adverts, 41pc said their recruiters know about age policies, 62pc had training based purely on skill needs, and 25pc monitored the age profile of applicants and workforce. The EFA and Age Positive both push the benefits of a workforce that includes people of all ages.

The respondents to the survey agree to an extent, with 28pc saying that recruitment costs will be reduced, 26pc believing there will be fewer short-term absences, 42pc expecting there will be lower staff turnover, 30pc seeing higher productivity, and 25pc thinking it will give firms access to a wider customer base.

There seem to be different views in and out of Government about how ageism awareness is developing, but then age has always been a sensitive issue.

• The Recruitment Confidence Index is a quarterly index developed by Cranfield School of Management and The Daily Telegraph. Copies are available, priced £50, from Dr Emma Parry, Cranfield School of Management, 01234 754808 or emma.parry@cranfield.ac.uk. Alternatively, visit our website at www.rcisurvey.co.uk.